Do you open a company that you like and have a passion for, or a company that is more likely to succeed?

Absrtact: If you are a fresh graduate, in looking for a job, you often face such a choice: is to go to a company that you like, but the salary is lower, do not solve the account of the start-up companies; or choose to go to a family that you don't like, but professional, not only to provide you

If you are a fresh graduate, in looking for a job, you often face such a choice: to go to a company that you like, but the salary is lower, do not solve the account of the start-up companies, or choose to go to a family you do not like, but professional, not only to provide you with a higher salary, but also to solve the account of

Similarly, if you go to gymnastics for the first time, there are two sports to choose from, one that you don't like, but it's easy to get high score, the other is that you like it, but you know, if you don't work hard, the score is definitely not going to go. If it were you, what would you choose?

Many people will choose the one that you both like and challenge, and even if you may need more training, you need to work harder.

But, if the situation is, you have to get a a in gymnastics class, you can apply to a better university, then, how will you choose? Do you insist on love, or do you choose the one that is easy?

This is almost the problem that all entrepreneurs have to face when they start a company: Do you open a company that you like and have a passion for, or open a company that is easier to succeed? Entrepreneurs like to talk about their passion for work, but I feel more and more inclined to take the path of least resistance when faced with a choice. Of course, it is reasonable to do so, and if you look at it purely from an economic standpoint, it is also the right choice. Economists may also say that humanity's passion for something is irrational, and the right thing to do is to make the right choices and judgments based on the greatest odds of success.

If you go back to the original hypothesis, if in this gymnastics class, half of the people chose their favorite, and the other half chose the simple. So, after that, who will work harder? Who will spend more time practicing? Who will really learn and make progress in this process? I think the answer is very obvious, those who choose, although it is difficult, but they like the project, will pay more, and harder, naturally, they compared to the choice of simple projects, the harvest will be greater.

So, from this point of view, are those "easy" projects really easier and easier? In fact, the definition of "relaxed" is quite questionable. Think carefully, is to do something you do not like, but you for a result, choose to swallow, endure this period of time relaxed? Or the choice is even more challenging, but do you really like things easier? This comparison, in essence, is actually a comparison of external and internal incentives. Do something you love, and do something with a paycheck, a reward, an account, etc., and the results may be worse.

Although there is no clear evidence that internal stimulation must mean a higher likelihood of success, not to mention that success is a joint product of many factors, but there are surveys that show that people who do something externally driven have a significant difference in performance compared with those who are internally driven. External drivers that seem to have positive effects, such as higher salaries and extra bonuses, are, in fact, only going to make us worse. Similarly, job performance, driven by external pressures or obligations (such as raising venture capital), will not be very good. And these pressures, there is a disadvantage is that you do is your favorite thing, because of the existence of pressure, over time, your interest is really completely become a pure work.

Unfortunately, our existing ecosystem is one that is more externally driven than it is required to do your job. Investors are in fact playing the role of a sports teacher, and they tell you that if you choose a relaxed project, you can easily get a. Incubators, accelerators, and ambition VCs, who give entrepreneurs incentives from outside, have also created a group of young entrepreneurs who aim for rapid success.

As I said before, both options are understandable. The external driving mechanism is also an example of maximizing economic benefits, but under such a mechanism it is easy to spawn a group of "mercenaries" who never can-do for a great cause.

I believe that the external incentives provided by the entrepreneurial environment, like the one on the gymnastics class, actually reduce those who really love sports or a career. If those who are motivated internally, because of the external incentives offered by the larger environment, doubt the value of their efforts or even give up, the result is that we are likely to lose the people who truly excel. Those who originally had the passion and talent of basketball, who had the potential to be a basketball star, only because the ball is easier to get a, instead of choosing the latter ....

Of course not everyone is faced with this choice, in fact, there are some choices you both like, and very easy to "get a". Just, in our entrepreneurial process, if we really encounter such a problem, then, it is to choose a you really like, and can inspire your enthusiasm of the project, or choose a very easy to get the "a", this question, you think?